1/17/06
Eminent domain proving to be a major issue affecting Minnesota cities
The right of a city to use the power of eminent domain for public purposes and for some kinds of economic development is under fire and could result in legislation limiting that power.
A revised policy could affect the way Minnesota cities, principally in older suburban communities, redevelop blighted, contaminated and deteriorating private property.
The matter has arisen because of a U. S. Supreme Court decision that said economic development projects qualify as a public use for which eminent domain can be invoked.
The heart of the argument is what constitutes a public use, and the issue is transferring a privately-owned property to another private entity or developer.
The Supreme Court decision has provoked a debate over the use and abuse of eminent domain, sparking proposed legislation to limit the power presumably to protect the rights of the private property owner.
The Minnesota Legislature and Governor Tim Pawlenty are backing some limits on government from taking land, and legislation on eminent domain power will come up at this yearís session.
The Metropolitan Council already has crafted a policy against giving grants to cities who use eminent domain to transfer property from one private owner to another private owner.
Exemptions would include using eminent domain to acquire private property for public ownership and use, such as a roadway, park, sewer, hospital or school and to acquire abandoned or deteriorated property or remove a public nuisance.
The Metropolitan Area Association of Cities represents 77 communities in the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area. Its board is concerned that the backlash may restrict funding where use of eminent domain is being used for public purposes and as a tool for good economic development.
One such project is the ìHeart of Anokaî for which a Metro Council grant is needed, but where eminent domain may be used to buy some rental property. This project will clear out some old buildings to make way for a riverside trail system along the Rum River and condos and new shops.
Those opposing use of eminent domain to take private property say some cities have abused it, and one organization is citing 21 abuses.
The Minnesota League of Cities, also alarmed over what might happen to eminent domain in the Legislature, took a survey resulting in 636 responses (77 percent of its members.) Over a six-year period, 84 percent did not use eminent domain at all. Only 34 or five percent used it for redevelopment and removal of hazardous building or economic development by a private owner.
Cities have long regarded the power of eminent domain as an important economic tool and contend it has been used carefully and for the benefit of the public. A rush to change this power may not be in the best interests of the redevelopment of older cities, and without it, taxpayers may have to pay more to redevelop blighted, contaminated and out-dated properties. -- Don Heinzman
HometownSource.com
ECM Publishers, Inc.
4095 Coon Rapids Blvd.
Coon Rapids, MN 55433
